State v. Superior Court of King County

• Decision Date: 09 July 1908
• Citation: 96 P. 519,50 Wash. 13
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TOLT POWER & TRANSPORTATION CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY et al.

96 P. 519

50 Wash. 13

STATE ex rel. TOLT POWER & TRANSPORTATION CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

July 9, 1908

Proceedings by the state, on the relation of the Tolt Power &amp Transportation Company, for the condemnation of private property for the purposes of the company. From an order dismissing the proceedings, relator brings writ of review. Affirmed.

Chas. D. Fullen, for plaintiff.

John A Shackleford, for respondents.

RUDKIN J.

The Tolt Power & Transportation Company is a corporation organized under the laws of this state, and is authorized, by its articles of incorporation, to develop, adapt, and utilize the water power of Tolt river, and all rivers and streams and bodies of water in this state, for commercial purposes, and to construct, operate, and maintain a plant, or plants, for the electrical transmission of heat, light, and power, from the source or sources of such power, to all cities, towns and places economically accessible, etc. As such corporation it instituted this proceeding in the court below, to condemn and appropriate private property, to be used in the development of water power for the purposes specified in its charter or articles of incorporation. A motion to dismiss, in the nature of a demurrer, was interposed to the petition, and the order sustaining the motion and dismissing the proceeding is now before us for review.

The relator frankly concedes at the outset that the principal questions involved in this proceeding are controlled by the decisions in State ex rel. Tacoma Industrial Co. v. White River Co., 39 Wash. 648, 82 P. 150, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 842, and State ex rel. Harris v. Superior Court, 42 Wash. 660, 85 P. 666, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 672, and we are asked to overrule these cases. The conclusions there announced, however, were only reached after extended argument and full consideration, and we must, at this time, decline to either review or reconsider the questions there decided. We will therefore confine ourselves to a discussion of the new questions presented by the record in this case. Our attention is first called to the act of March 13, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 349, c. 159). That act by its terms only applies to corporations authorized to condemn property under the present laws of the state, for the purpose of generating and transferring electrical power for the operation of railroads or railways, or for municipal lighting, and authorizes such corporations to sell electric light outside the limits of...